The parallel drawn between Russia and post-Soviet states, and China and Tibet and Xinjiang is an insightful one. But this article seems somewhat incomplete -- I think the Financial Times could have offered more analysis or context in presenting the countries' diplomatic stances. I'm also beginning to question whether "breakaway" is the most accurate term to describe South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Can a region really be considered "breakaway" if it's enjoyed virtual independence for 16 years? I'm worried that Western media have latched onto this word simply out of habit, in the same way that "firebrand" is the adjective invariably used to describe the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

This is an example of some of the FT's talent for concise reporting. It is reminiscent of the WSJ many many years ago, before it became tabloid-like. The story doesn't speculate and doesn't elaborate on simple truths. It permits them to stand or fall on their own. While this is a very complicated matter - the story was centered around regional backing and Russia's failure to secure same. It delivered, without the typical ' color' (usually way off the mark) imposed over the facts in order to persuade the fast reader into thinking he arrived at his own opinion. The story had the essential basics covered and as far as it's value - it delivered.

In addition to offering the facts (Russia failed to secure strong backing for its actions in Georgia from its regional partners), good points are made concerning why e.g. China would be concerned not to support breakaway republics.

Usually USA officials put a brave face on the NATO summit. After obliterated the capital and whole country of South Ossetia, Georgian Nazi does not have to talks about integration with Ossetia. One can see this http://southossetia.100webspace.net/.